Let's Debate Inequality

[Koldo]

Thanks for answering my questions. I think what you’re talking about is an accounting nightmare. Especially when you have an assembly line type situation where 100 hands touch the product before it becomes a finished product; to try and figure out the value each hand provided, especially when some of the hands might be inspectors whose hands adds no value, but is necessary to ensure quality work by the hands that do.

The employer already roughly does this whenever a new employee is going to be hired, since the employer never intends to pay more than whatever value the employee is bringing to their company.

I believe the best system is for both employee and employer negotiate a wage prior to hiring, and employee is paid the agreed upon wage regardless of profit (or lack thereof) the product brings.

The issue though is that you may not actually be able to negotiate wages, if you are the employee.

 

[Nakosis]

Not when it's arranged politically, on a global scale.

Do you have an example of this?

 

[libre]

. Accumulation. A concept very well studied and explained precise and in detail by Karl Marx in Das Kapital.

The solution is simple: tax the rich.

I am a bit perplexed by your choice of source, given your solution is contradicted, not supported by the conclusions of Marx.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you have an example of this?

The G7..

To see how the poor (means-tested) have got poorer over the last few decades in the UK..

With the change to Income Support in 1988 the capital rules were largely the same as those for Supplementary Benefit. The capital cut off was set at £6000, and capital between £3000 and £6000 was treated as generating income of £1 per week for each £250.
...
Under Universal Credit the first £6000 is ignored. Capital over £16000 disqualifies the claimant. Capital between those limits if treated as giving tariff income of £4.35 per month for each £250, or part of £250.
Capital_rule - Wikipedia

£100 in 1988 is equivalent in purchasing power to about £336.05 today.

The same applies to the threshold for paying income tax .. it erodes,
and capitalist politicians conveniently ignore the fact.

 

[Kfox]

What have "if's" got to do with things?
It's also possible that while you build your house, the market collapses and you lose money.

Your claim is that the banks can prevent me from creating wealth; I gave an example where they cannot.

The distribution of household incomes in the United States became more unequal during the post-2008 economic recovery.

But the poor were better off post recovery than they were pre recovery.

Income inequality in the United States grew from 2005 to 2012 in more than two thirds of metropolitan areas. Median household wealth fell 35% in the US, from $106,591 to $68,839 between 2005 and 2011.
Great_Recession - Wikipedia

That’s because the economy was very strong in 2005, then when it crashed in 2007, by 2011 we were in recovery mode, but but not quite where we were in 2005 prior to the crash happening. In 2005 economic inequality was much greater than it was in 2011

 

[muhammad_isa]

In 2005 economic inequality was much greater than it was in 2011

The facts show otherwise.

According to you, our measure of global wealth is seriously flawed .. and should be infinite.
Complete and utter nonsense.

You do not seem to have a clue when it comes to politics and economics .. you envisage
some sort of pipe-dream, where we all have equal opportunity to become wealthy.
In reality, it is all controlled by geopolitical alliances.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you have an example of this?

The G7..
It is no surprise that this alliance secretly started in the 70's, when OPEC formed,
and held the West to ransom, by demanding higher oil prices.

Somebody had to 'pay for it', and it wasn't going to be the wealthy.
Economies had to be propped up, as in the 2007-8 recession, and under capitalism, it is
the poor who always have to suffer through austerity.

 

[wellwisher]

The main problem is the Left thinks equality means equal outcome, and not equal rights for all to pursue all outcomes. Equal outcome takes away rights, since it leads to entitlements, instead of rights, and this leads to a downgrade for all.

As an analogy, in sports we have people of all levels of talent, in each sport, from scrub to professional. This is an analogy for the poor to rich. There is nobody saying you cannot rise up, in any given sport, since the same rules apply to all and tryout are open. However, there are other factors involved, in terms of the level of success, such as natural talent, hard work and even coaching.

Not everyone has the same talent level. Not everyone will put in the same hours and effort for work and preparation. A small business owner may work 60 hours per week, which is not for everyone. If that is what it takes, don't be resentful if you wish more time off. And not everyone has the best coaching, since the best coaching is a function of talent and the willingness to do hard work. In the end, everyone plays the game, with each person playing to the level of their talent, their willingness to work and their coaching derives from the first two, with more talent and/or more willingness to work, giving you better coaching; education and training. If you lack or slack, in the first two, coaching is less. If you want to climb the ladder coaching at Harvard will help, but that requires talent and hard work.

Say we decide it not about talent, work and coaching, but we want the same outcome; regardless. We decide that top basketball player; MVP, is too good and makes the scrubs jealous and resentful. We need to tax his talent, which in this case, we add extra rules that require him dumb down the level of his game. We dig a hole and make him stand in the hole, so he seems smaller, and we can appear to rise above. This is not rising but a relative reference illusion. The total for scrub and MVP is how less, since nothing rose but something was driven lower. If we tax the rich and give it to government we get -20% rate of return before the poor gets it. That is a system of loss, since appeasing resentment has no value in terms of fair sports.

As along as the scrub players are not required to rise, we will need to dumb the top talent; tax, even more, until the scrub feels an equal outcome. It would make more sense, to help the scrub work harder, so he can get better coaching and use that to rise under their own power. This feeling of accomplishment is worth more than a grudging shakedown in terms of building self esteem; scrub to club.

When Trump was in office, he increased employment for minorities and women; enterprise zones. Employment meant working harder and getting better coaching; job training. This was going well until the DNC riots burnt down these opportunity zones. The rioting reversed the rising club players back to scrub. The DNC needs scrubs, since they are easier to manipulate with jealousy, resentment and fear. The clubs feel more empowered and must be stoped from escaping the DNC plantation; voter slaves who stay due to being shackled with fear and resentment.

It comes down to harder work for better coaching, if the goal is a sense of accomplishment to build self esteem. There is no better feeling than to push yourself beyond what you thought were your limits. This opens many doors.

 

[Koldo]

The main problem is the Left thinks equality means equal outcome, and not equal rights for all to pursue all outcomes. Equal outcome takes away rights, since it leads to entitlements, instead of rights, and this leads to a downgrade for all.

Who is defending equal outcome? Provide actual examples.

 

[Heyo]

I am a bit perplexed by your choice of source, given your solution is contradicted, not supported by the conclusions of Marx.

As I said, I don't agree with Marx' conclusions, but his analysis is spot on.

 

[Kfox]

The facts show otherwise.

According to you, our measure of global wealth is seriously flawed .. and should be infinite.
Complete and utter nonsense.

No; according to me, in the US, when the economy is booming and doing very good, this is when income inequality is at it's greatest, and this is also when the poor are better off financially. When the economy is doing bad and in a recession, income inequality is less, and this is also when the poor are worse off financially.

 

[Kfox]

The employer already roughly does this whenever a new employee is going to be hired, since the employer never intends to pay more than whatever value the employee is bringing to their company.

Where? I have never heard of a case where the employer pays it's employees according to the value they bring to the product. Where does this happen?

The issue though is that you may not actually be able to negotiate wages, if you are the employee.

You can always negotiate, you just have to be willing to walk away; that's all.

 

[Koldo]

Where? I have never heard of a case where the employer pays it's employees according to the value they bring to the product. Where does this happen?

That's not what I said. You mentioned it being hard to figure out how much value a given enployee is generating. What I have said is that this is already done, roughly, by the employers. The employer never intends to pay more than the value the employee generates.

You can always negotiate, you just have to be willing to walk away; that's all.

You must also be able to walk away though, which is often not an alternative, particularly when there isn't a high demand for your set of skills and you need the money to make your ends meet.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No; according to me, in the US, when the economy is booming and doing very good, this is when income inequality is at it's greatest, and this is also when the poor are better off financially. When the economy is doing bad and in a recession, income inequality is less, and this is also when the poor are worse off financially.

I think I know what you are implying..
..that Republican policies are better for everyone, because the Democrats are responsible
for inflation and recession and so ruin everybody's prospects.
This is simply not true.

eg. George Bush presided over the 2007-8 banking failures .. Barack Obama had to clear it up.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No; according to me, in the US, when the economy is booming and doing very good, this is when income inequality is at it's greatest, and this is also when the poor are better off financially. When the economy is doing bad and in a recession, income inequality is less, and this is also when the poor are worse off financially.

Following the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, a worldwide surge in inflation began in mid-2021 and lasted until mid-2022. Many countries saw their highest inflation rates in decades. It has been attributed to various causes, including pandemic-related economic dislocation, supply chain disruptions, the fiscal and monetary stimulus provided in 2020 and 2021 by governments and central banks around the world in response to the pandemic, and price gouging. Preexisting factors that may have contributed to the surge included housing shortages, climate impacts, and government budget deficits have also been cited as factors.
inflation_surge - Wikipedia

Get your facts straight .. the whole world has been experiencing recent inflation, and blaming it
on the Democrats is nothing more than a false political ruse.

 

[Kfox]

I think I know what you are implying..
..that Republican policies are better for everyone, because the Democrats are responsible
for inflation and recession and so ruin everybody's prospects.
This is simply not true

Whaaaattt!!??? How on Earth did you make that leap??? Seriously, what did I say to give you the impression anything I said was about blaming democrats?

Following the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, a worldwide surge in inflation began in mid-2021 and lasted until mid-2022. Many countries saw their highest inflation rates in decades. It has been attributed to various causes, including pandemic-related economic dislocation, supply chain disruptions, the fiscal and monetary stimulus provided in 2020 and 2021 by governments and central banks around the world in response to the pandemic, and price gouging. Preexisting factors that may have contributed to the surge included housing shortages, climate impacts, and government budget deficits have also been cited as factors.
inflation_surge - Wikipedia

Get your facts straight .. the whole world has been experiencing recent inflation, and blaming it
on the Democrats is nothing more than a false political ruse.

Again; what did I say to give you the impression I was blaming anything on Democrats?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..what did I say to give you the impression I was blaming anything on Democrats?

Well, you did say "Just as we can easily disagree on whether something is unfair, we can also disagree on whether half a million homeless is a problem that needs to be solved. It’s all subjective."

..which makes me think that you prefer Republican policy .. and you are standing-up for
capitalism, as if the only other solution is communism .. which it's not.
So I'm happy you realize the "cost of living crisis" is not due to Democrat policy.

Here in the UK, the majority find a health service which is entirely based on private insurance despicable.
A health service in which only the well-off can participate. Just saying

 

[Kfox]

Well, you did say "Just as we can easily disagree on whether something is unfair, we can also disagree on whether half a million homeless is a problem that needs to be solved. It’s all subjective."

I was saying that to make a point. I was not expressing my personal opinion concerning the homeless issue.

..which makes me think that you prefer Republican policy .. and you are standing-up for
capitalism, as if the only other solution is communism .. which it's not.

I was standing up for capitalism because I believe it is the best economic system; not because I believe the only other alternative is communism.

So I'm happy you realize the "cost of living crisis" is not due to Democrat policy.

Here in the UK, the majority find a health service which is entirely based on private insurance despicable.
A health service in which only the well-off can participate. Just saying

Ahh so you live in the UK? Perhaps that's why we were talking past each other. Your idea of republicans and democrats is likely different from mine.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I was standing up for capitalism because I believe it is the best economic system..

..despite the fact that it puts global wealth in the hands of a few?

A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reported that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000. The three richest people in the world possess more financial assets than the lowest 48 nations combined.
Economic_inequality - Wikipedia

Capitalism, as the name suggests, relies on the wealthy to invest their capital. The global
financial system is usurious, meaning those who provide wealth increase it, and those who
are poor are forced to make usurious loans in order to survive.
The result is economic inequality, as we see above.

Before the Reformation, usury was outlawed in Europe.

 

[Kfox]

..despite the fact that it puts global wealth in the hands of a few?

A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reported that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000.

90% of music comes from 1% of artists. Is this fair?
80% of investment gains are realized by 20% of investments. Is this fair?
90% of books are sold by 10% of authors. Is this fair?
80% of social media shares are of 20% of the posts. Is this fair?
80% of News stories are based on 20% of world events; is this fair?

So why should it surprise you that 40% of the wealth is generated by 1% of people?

Capitalism, as the name suggests, relies on the wealthy to invest their capital. The global
financial system is usurious, meaning those who provide wealth increase it, and those who
are poor are forced to make usurious loans in order to survive.
The result is economic inequality, as we see above.

Do you think those poor would be better off if the rich did not exist?